Edgar Joseph Jr. SCJ:

Broadly stated, in this suit the plaintiffs claimed that at all material times, they were and are lawful and protected tenants and that they are entitled in law and equity to possession of that portion of the land forming part of the holding No. 3532, Mukim 13, NED, Penang, Lot 2497, Mukim 13, NED, Penang, in area 121 ,619 sq. ft. (or 2. 8 acres) delineated in the plan P16 ("the plot concerned") on which are situated their two dwelling houses, bearing numbers 258 K and 259 H ("the two dwelling houses") and their vegetable farm ("the farm").

At all material times to this suit the registered proprietors of holding No. 3532 (popularly known as "Thean Teik Estate") were and are the trustees of Khoo Kongsi.

More particularly, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is founded on trespass and nuisance, allegedly committed by the first defendant Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn. Bhd. and by their servants or agents the second defendant Sriwata Sdn.Bhd., as developers and contractors, respectively on 18 June 1982 on a portion of the plot concerned etched black on the plan P14, and by the third defendant Perumahan Farlim (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and their servants or agents the fourth defendant Thean Tatt Construction Sdn. Bhd., as developers and contractors respectively, on 17 March 1988 on a portion of the plot concerned etched orange on the plan P14 and their unlawful occupation of the portion etched black in P14.

The reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs are for aggravated and exemplary damages for trespass and nuisance, with interest thereon, a permanent injunction restraining all the defendants whether by themselves or their servants and/or agents or otherwise howsoever from entering, trespassing and/or carrying out works on the plot concerned on which are situated the dwelling houses and the vegetable farm and costs.

On the other hand, broadly stated, the defence has raised objections based on points of procedure relating to amendments of pleadings, the law as to locus standi and, so far as the merits are concerned, the defence denies the averments aforesaid by the plaintiffs and counterclaims for possession, damages and mesne profits.

In this judgment, unless the context otherwise requires, I shall refer to the first , the second, and the third plaintiffs as "P1", "P2" and "P3", respectively , and to the first, the second, the third and the fourth defendants as "D1", "D2", "D3" and "D4", respectively.

The essential facts said to underly the plaintiffs' case may be conveniently taken from the written submis- sion of Counsel for the plaintiffs and are as follows:

1.11 The plaintiffs' family has been staying on the plot concerned since the time of P2's greatgrandfather, which would be in the later part of the 19th Century or early part of the 20th Century i.e. more than 100 years ago. P2's grandfather, Cheong Au Pit, was 84 years of age at the time of his death in 1969.

1.12 Cheong Au Pit's family, by their own efforts, had converted what was once a swampy jungle into a productive farm. They levelled the land and constructed drains to drain away the water. They had also built pig sties, chicken coops, wells and other structures.

1.13 Cheong Au Pit, who managed the farm during his lifetime, was the head of an extended Chinese family, consisting of his children, grandchildren, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law and his adopted daughter Cheng Lye Hiang (PW1). After Cheong Au Pit's death, P2 took over the role of Cheong Au Pit and managed the farm.

The family members worked on the farm and the income was used to pay for their expenses and the balance was shared among the family members who worked in the farm.

1.14 House No. 258-K, has been standing on the plot concerned since before the birth of P2 on 15th December 1938. In 1972, after Cheong Au Pit's death, P1 and P2 were registered as tenants of this house in place of Cheong Au Pit.

House No. 259-H was built by Cheong Au Pit in 1963 with the consen